Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="stonehead" data-source="post: 9847924" data-attributes="member: 7047885">This discussion seems to suffer from the "Everything is a 7" problem that so often follows every 10 point scale. If the gap between a 6 and a 7.5 is bigger than between a 7.5 and an 8, then I think we've done a poor job assigning numbers to systems. I agree that Pathfinder 2 having flavor traits that don't do anything on their own and also traits that have hidden rules beneath them (potential huge rules like Incapacitation) makes it needlessly complex, but it's still much easier to introduce new players to than P1. [HR][/HR]For my personal taste, I typically like the more complex side. I tend to get bored when gameplay is "I try to hit him with my sword" for 3 to 4 turns. Mechanical depth is a good way to break up the monotony, because it makes you think about where to stand, who to attack, which ability to use, all sorts of things like that. It's not the only way though, I'm a fan of Blades in the Dark, because it encourages you interact with the scene to improve your position and effect.[HR][/HR]This framing is a little weird though because in game design terminology "complexity" is usually framed as a cost, not as an end goal. Complexity is how hard it is to learn and play a game. Usually "depth" is the goal, which is something like "how many meaningful decisions/interactions do you have?" Adding rules adds complexity, which makes a game harder to learn, but hopefully it also adds enough depth to be worth it. A rule or game that acheives a lot of depth without adding much complexity is "elegant". <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_(game)" target="_blank">GO</a> is the classic example. It's an incredibly strategic game that takes dozens of years to master, but the rules are simple enough that children can play it. <a href="https://www.umop.com/rps101.htm" target="_blank">RPS101</a> is a good example of a game with high complexity, but low depth. It's a fun novelty, but no one actually plays it.This is all just me being needlessly pedantic, because they're usually correlated pretty well.</blockquote>

Verification